SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1959 Supreme(SC) 218

J.L.KAPUR, K.N.WANCHOO, SYED JAFAR IMAM
Maharaj Prithvisinghji Bhimsinghji – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bombay – Respondent


Advocates:
D.GUTPA, M.S.K.Shastri, PURSHOTTAM TRIKAMDAS, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY

Judgment

IMAM, J. : The appellant was tried by a Magistrate of 1st Class of Abu Road for an offence punishable under Ss. 65(a) and 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (Bombay Act XXV of 1949), hereinafter referred to as the Act. His servant Gangaram Makarji, accused No. 2, was also tried along with him under the aforesaid sections. A third accused in the case was the driver of the jeep car but the Magistrate did not frame any charge against him. He was accordingly discharged. The appellant was sentenced by the Magistrate to 6 months S. I and a fine of Rs. 500 under S. 65(a) of the Act and to 3 months S. I. and a fine of Rs. 500 under S. 66(b) of the Act. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. His servant Gangaram Makarji was sentenced to one month s S. I. and a fine of Rs. 100 under S. 65(a) of the Act and to 15 days S. I. and a fine of Rs. 100 under S. 66(b) of the Act. the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.

2. The appellant appealed to the Sessions Judge of Mehsana against his conviction and sentence. The Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, allowed it and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top